Modern Christianity (with the exception of its theologians) assumes that the view held by both Trinitarianism and also the ditheist form of Binitarianism, namely that Christ was co-eternal with the Father, is the biblical view. Binitarianism seeks to assert that, whilst Christ was co-eternal with the Father, he was somehow subordinate and so a lesser but nevertheless eternally existent God. From this logic he was, and is, thus a true God, equal in the Godhead with the other true God to which the status of Father was allocated. He assumed the status of Son and thus there were two eternally existing Gods ab origine or from the eternity before the beginning of creation, either spiritual or physical. This position is held most dearly and is defended by resort to the most extraordinary manipulation of the plain words of the texts.

Interestingly enough, this position that Christ is a co-eternal God is attributed to the early Church by those who defend it from a lay point of view. However, it is not held by the theologians, who acknowledge the early position of the Church to be something quite different, namely subordinationist Unitarian. Much of the ignorance of modern Protestantism surrounding the question of Christ’s immortality stems from the singular reliance on the Authorised King James Version, which has been deliberately mistranslated in some texts to obscure the true intent of the verses; and even plain forgeries have been inserted in the texts, either in the English or in the Textus Receptus on which it is based in order to support the Trinitarian (and by extension, the modern Binitarian) viewpoint.

It is important to understand the method of the conferment of immortality on Jesus Christ to understand how that same immortality is conferred on the elect. In order to examine the matter, we will first examine the biblical texts from a number of translations. Having established the premises upon which the Bible appears to be based, we will then test it against the understanding of the early Church theologians.

What will emerge is that the Apostles were Unitarian – that is, they believed that there was only One True God. They believed that Christ was not the One True God but a product of the One True God, and that the One True God is both Father of all and Lord of all. We will see that the position that Christ holds is a delegated position, which stems from the abiding love of the Father. The elect will share in that position, which necessarily involves immortality in the same way that Christ shares in the immortality and power of God. We will see that it was the view of the prophets and the early Church Elders (who were disciples of the Apostles) that mankind would become elohim as Christ was anointed an elohim by his Elohim, who was the One True God. We will see that this is the true basis of Monotheism.

There is only One True God

This point is clearly made by the Apostles. John is clear (Jn. 17:3 and 1Jn. 5:20).

John 17:3And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. (KJV)

The premises made here are seen as:

1. The subject is eternal life. Eternal life is thus conferred from a basis.

2. The basis is that they (the elect or those who seek eternal life) know the One True God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.

3. The plain words of the text distinguish two Beings: the first is the One True God; the second is Jesus Christ whom He has sent.

From this text we may deduce the following:

1. Eternal life depends upon a knowledge of the One True God and His delegate or messenger;

2. That delegate is Jesus Christ;

3. Jesus Christ is not the One True God; and

4. Failure to understand the difference between the One True God and His messenger Jesus Christ, or to confuse the issue as to whether there is more than One True God, implies an inadequate knowledge such as to disqualify the candidate from eternal life. That is implied, as eternal life is the subject of the sentence and the knowledge of both entities and their status is the conditional, i.e. eternal life depends upon this knowledge.

The major point also from this text is that there is only one True God. Christ is thus not a true God.

Is this point accidental? Does it appear elsewhere and is it supported by other texts? What might we deduce from it?

1John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (KJV)

The wording of this text, among others, has been used to demonstrate the fact that Christ is not the One True God both by the early Church and by the Unitarian Church of the Middle Ages and Reformation. Misconstructions have been placed on it to attempt to assert the use of the article, i.e. The God as applying to Jesus Christ in the Greek. The New Testament was noted throughout the ages to only use the definite article when referring to God the Father as The God. This text in 1John 5:20 was misconstructed so that it might be inferred that the definite article referred to Christ. Such a refutation of the Unitarians (occasionally called Socinians by the Catholics) in Eastern Europe in the Reformation period was attempted by the compilers of the 1851 Haydock commentary of the Douay-Rheims English version of the Bible. The Douay-Rheims was compiled in any case from the Vulgate (see fn. to 1Jn. 5:20 in the Haydock commentary).

The Jerusalem Bible gives a clearer translation of the text.

We know too that the Son of God has come,

and has given us the power

to know the true God.

We are in the true God,

as we are in [H]is Son, Jesus Christ.

This is the true God,

this is eternal life.

Verse 21 says:

Children be on your guard against false gods.

This concept, namely that the True God is eternal life, is repeated here. Christ is here distinct from the True God and is named as the Son of God. We are in the True God as we are in the Son of God. Thus, we are in both the Father, who is the True God, and His Son whom He sent. Conversely, we will see that they are also in us.

Through John, Christ is at great pains to make this point because it was John who had to deal with the heresy that attempted to elevate Christ to a co-eternal modality with God. This became the forerunner of Trinitarianism and its incoherent predecessor, Binitarianism. However, neither view was held by the Elders or members of the Apostolic Church, or the disciples in the second century.

The concept of the One True God is derived from the Shema (Deut. 6:4).

Shema Yishroel Jehovah Elohenu Jehovah Ehad

This is translated: Hear O Israel the Lord our God is one. The Trinitarians are left to extract the best from this text. They claim that the word for God here is Elohim, which it is not. The word Elohenu is a singular derivative of Eloah. Elohim is a plural derivative of the singular Eloah. Elohenu, as a singular derivative, cannot be associated with Elohim.

Eloah is the Father (Prov. 30:4-5; see Interlinears). Eloah is the object of worship in the Temple for whom it was built (Ezra 4:24 to 7:24). Ezra established worship in the House of Eloah at Jerusalem and established magistrates and judges in Israel and the lands beyond the river to judge those who know the Law of Eloah (Ezra 7:25-28).

The First Commandment under its seven principles and the Shema are examined in the paper The First Commandment: The Sin of Satan (No. 153).

Sons of God

As recorded in the Gospel of John, Christ develops the conferring of immortality on himself by the Father. This is logically necessary, as it had to be explained so that we might understand it in order to qualify ourselves for immortality. The text in John 5:17-47 has a number of significant premises. The first point deals with sonship as equality.

John 5:17-18 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. ¹⁸ Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. (KJV)

The first point is that the Jews held that he had made himself equal with God by claiming that God was his Father. This is the same charge that is levelled at the elect when they claim that the Bible destines them to become elohim (from Zech. 12:8).

Zechariah 12:8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. (KJV)

Zechariah 12:8 shows that the elohim of Israel is the Angel of Yahovah. This Angel or elohim is at the head of the household of the king. The text develops that of Genesis 48:14-16.

Genesis 48:14-16 And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh's head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn. ¹⁵And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, ¹⁶The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. (KJV)

Thus the elohim of Israel was the Angel of Redemption. This is examined in the papers The Angel of YHVH (No. 24) and The Deity of Christ (No. 147). This position was held by the Apostles and their disciples, as we shall see.

The Psalms show that the elohim of Israel was a subordinate elohim.

Psalm 45:6-7 Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. ⁷Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (KJV)

The text in Deuteronomy shows that the elohim of Israel who was Yahovah was allocated Israel as his portion when the Most High God divided the nations among the sons of God (RSV; beny eliym DSS) or the angels of God (aggelon theou, LXX). This text was altered by the Sopherim sometime after Christ in what is now the Masoretic Text (see Companion Bible and Soncino for the altered text).

The elohim were thus sons of God. They had access to the Throne from before the creation and after. There were multiple Morning Stars in this group and Satan was one of the sons of God. (Deut. 32:8 (RSV); Job. 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7). The elohim were a council (see Sabourin S.J., The Psalms: Their Origin and Meaning, Alba House, N.Y., pp. 72-74 for an analysis of this concept). These texts are found at Psalms 82:1,6; 86:8; 95:3; 96:4,5; 97:7,9; 135:5; 136:2; 138:1.

The elohim of Israel was elevated above his partners (Ps. 45:6-7). The partners were the council of the Elohim. This elohim referred to in the Psalm is identified as Jesus Christ from Hebrews 1:8-9.

Hebrews 1:8-9 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. ⁹ Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (KJV)

We can establish from these texts that Messiah was the Great Angel of Yahovah who was Israel’s second God. This is seen from the usage of Yahovah and his superior Yahovih or Yahovah of Hosts. This is understood from the treatment of the terms in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary 3068 and 3069. The terms are never spoken and are rendered as Adonai for SHD 3068 and as Elohim for SHD 3069 so as not to confuse the two beings. The terms referring to Yahovah and his superior Yahovah of Hosts is found, for example, in Zechariah 2:8-9.

Zechariah 2:8-9 For thus saith the LORD of hosts; After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. ⁹ For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me. (KJV)

We see here that the entity Yahovah was sent by Yahovah of Hosts. The two are distinct Beings: one is the messenger; the other is the supreme God. This sense is evident elsewhere (see also the paper The Elect as Elohim (No. 1)).

The text in Hebrews shows that Christ was advanced above his partners by his incarnation and activity as the earthly son. This concept was developed of Messiah as Mordecai in Esther (Esth. 3:1; 5:11; 10:2) (see the paper Commentary on Esther (No. 63)).

God was not concerned with the faithful angels. They were learning by their faithfulness in administering to us as ministering spirits. It was with the descendants of Abraham that He was next concerned. Therefore, the High Priest had to become as one of them in order to understand them and bring them to salvation.

Hebrews 2:16-18 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. ¹⁷ Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. ¹⁸ For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (KJV)

The KJV renders the text the nature of angels. The RSV renders the text as follows:

Hebrews 2:16-18 For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. ¹⁷ Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. ¹⁸For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted. (RSV)

The KJV attempts to make it appear that Christ was not in the form of the Host. This was done along with the manipulation of many texts to show that Christ was somehow another true God, as had been developed by the Athanasians from the Council of Nicaea in 325 BCE and formulated in the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE. The text in Hebrews was argued at length at Nicaea. The Trinitarians were concerned about the concept of Christ being created and fought against the explicit statement in Hebrews that Christ was faithful to He that made him. This text was translated faithful to He that appointed him in the English because of Trinitarian theology (Heb. 3:2 – see also Heb. 1:2).

Hebrews 3:2 He was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in God's house. (RSV)

The word translated as appointed is poieo (SGD 4160), which is to make or do. This is the only time this word is translated thus. The sense of Christ’s appointment is found in Hebrews 5:5-10.

Hebrews 5:5-10 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee";6 as he says also in another place, "Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchiz'edek." ⁷ In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear. ⁸Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; ⁹ and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, ¹⁰being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek. (RSV)

Christ was thus not always High Priest. After he had qualified he was appointed as High Priest by God. This is the reason why the Book of Hebrews was resisted by the Modalists and by those who sought to elevate Christ as a true God. Hebrews was removed from the Canon by many who sought this (see the paper The Bible (No. 164) for an explanation of the development of the Canon). Although he was a son, he learned by what he suffered and, being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him. He was thus not the source of eternal salvation until it was conferred on him by the Father.

Also, the sonship is held to be in distinction from the incarnation from Hebrews. Thus Christ had an elevated status from his reduction and suffering. The sense of the charge of equality with God by claiming sonship was rejected by the Apostles. There are various texts that deny the equality of Christ with God and which show his relationship with the Father. Many of these were altered by the Trinitarians in the English texts. The sense of Philippians 2:6 was altered significantly in the KJV.

Philippians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: (KJV)

Here the sense is made out to be that Christ did not think it robbery to be equal with God. The sense is, however, that it was not something to be grasped after to become equal with God. In other words, the fallen Host wanted to grasp equality with God. Christ did not do so but became obedient unto death. We see this sense from the RSV and other texts (see also Marshall’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament).

Philippians 2:6-11 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ⁷ but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.⁸ And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. ⁹ Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, ¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ¹¹ and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (RSV)

The New Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon at page 74 also shows the nature of the word developed as grasped (SGD 725; harpagmos).

John 1:1 was similarly mistreated (see the papers The Deity of Christ (No. 147) and The First Commandment: The Sin of Satan (No. 153)). The New World Translation attempts to rectify the translation with: In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. The text deals with The God (ton Theon) and a god (theos, without the definite article). The indefinite article must be inferred here in the Greek. We will now examine this text more fully. The Greek text reads:

W< •DP± µ< Ò 8`(@H,

En arche en ho logos,

In [?] beginning was the word [or divine utterance],

6"4 Ò 8`(@H µ< BDÎH JÎ< 2,`<,

kai ho logos en pros ton theon

and the word was towards the God

6"4 2,ÎH µ< Ò 8`(@H

kai theos en ho logos

and [a] god was the logos

or:

and the logos was a god.

The definite article is absent from the first clause En arche. This is perhaps more correctly read as in a beginning. The definite article is expressed in the Greek whereas the indefinite article is always inferred, being absent in the Greek. The preposition pros means towards; it does not mean with specifically. So the basic use of prepositions is: pros means towards, en means in, and ek means out of (pro = before; meta = after; epi = up; huper = over; pepi = about; eis = into; appo = from; dia = through; hupo = under; kata = down).

The use of pros ton theon here in John 1:1 means that the word was towards or with the God in the sense that this theos looked towards or was on the side of, or was a loyal attendant of the God. This logos was also a god. Now this meaning is totally unacceptable to Trinitarians. The text is thus translated as it is. However, the meanings can be seen from a number of sources.

The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures shows the constructions mentioned above. Also, the text in John 1:1 can be compared with other Greek texts of the same construction. An example in Greek literature is found in Xenophon (Anabasis, 1:4.6). The text is translated, But the place was a market, and is understood as meaning that there were other markets, just as John 1:1 can be taken to infer that there were other elohim or theoi – which we understand from the Psalms etc. The Appendix of the Kingdom Interlinear Translation for John 1:1 deals with these texts and lists the translations of John 1:1 in other Bibles. The Complete Bible - An American Translation renders the expression as divine, reading: In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God and the Word was divine (1943 reprint). Dr. James Moffatt translates the text as: The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine (A New Translation of the Bible, 1935 edn.). The anarthrous use of theos here prompts these translators to use the term divine because it is clear that the theos referred to in the text is distinct from the ton theon or ho theos which is the being the God as distinct from a god which is the logos. This is the same sense John uses in 17:2-5 (esp. at v. 3).

The Kingdom Interlinear holds that the text could have been translated as, and the Word was a god in consistency with Xenophon’s usage. They note that the copulative verb was and the expression a god form the predicate of the sentence. The inference of the definite article to apply to the logos as theos – so that the sentence should read, and the Word was God, implying that the logos was the God that the sentence states the logos was with – is linguistically unreasonable and against the plain usage of the words of the text. Green’s Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament holds that the general rule is that, "in the simple sentence, the Subject takes the article and the Predicate omits it". The examples provided by Green in explanation of this situation relating to the word is truth, the word was god and God is love, are noted in the appendix to the Kingdom Interlinear to be an unintended admission that the Word in John 1:1 is not the same god as the God with whom the word is said to be (p. 1159).

Within the rules of language, as identified, this appears to be the case. Dr. A. T. Robertson has stated that:

God and love are not convertible terms, any more than God and Logos or Logos and flesh...The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 768; cf. The Kingdom Interlinear, ibid.).

Robertson’s view is supported by Dana and Mantey (Manual Grammar, p. 140; cf. the Kingdom Interlinear, ibid.). Robertson’s lists show that the omitting of the definite article in the predicate may be not according to any general rule, but for a specific purpose outside that rule (ibid., p. 1159). John does this often (Jn. 1:4,9,20,21,25,49; 3:28; 4:29,42; 5:35; 6:14,35,48,50,51,58,63,69; 7:26,40,41; 8:12; 10:7,9,11,14,24; 11:25,27; 14:6; 15:1,5; 18:33; 20:31; 21:24) and the translators often insert the indefinite article before the predicate noun (Jn. 4:19,24,25; 10:33; 12:6). Thus, from this usage, no objection can be raised to the insertion of the indefinite article a before the anarthrous theos in the predicate of John 1:1 (cf. ibid., p. 1160). The various translations render the same predicate construction with an anarthrous theos, found in Acts 28:6, not as he was God but he was a god. Thus, the same rules of grammar are broken and rendered entirely in the reverse in these two texts by the Trinitarian translators (see KJV, RSV, Westminster Version (1948), Moffatt’s Translation, An American Translation, Spencer’s Translation (1946) (cf. Kingdom Interlinear, ibid.). The true idea is held to be that the Logos or Word is not God or the God but is the son of God. He is hence a god or an elohim, which constitute God’s Council as formed from His sons. This is the entire sense of the Psalms and the structure of Revelation chapters 4 and 5. John qualifies the entire structure in the Gospel at John 17:3 and reiterates the understanding from 1John 5:20. Scripture supports this view entirely and overwhelmingly rejects the Trinitarian rendering and explanation. This was the view of the publication The New Testament, in an Improved Version, upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome’s New Translation: with a Corrected Text (London, 1808). This version long preceded Russell and the publishers of the Kingdom Interlinear. The text reads:

“The Word was in the beginning and the Word was with God, and the word was a god.”

This is a consistent rendering of the text within the theology of the Old Testament and the New Testament. The function of Trinitarian logic regarding these texts has forced the development of an entire theology that is explained only by an appeal to mystery. The Logos is held to be with the God and yet be the God. This is nonsense, and the text could have made such an hypothesis much more conveniently. Moreover, the other texts explain that this meaning is not the sense of the text, or the New Testament. It is thus inconvenient in the philosophical sense and against the other myriad texts, which show that Christ was subordinate and a separate entity. This is acknowledged by most theologians (e.g. Calvin, Harnack, Brunner) as the biblical position, which is Unitarian. Rational Theism, Judaism and Islam are all acknowledged to be Unitarian.

Similarly, the term in the beginning is applied to the term En arche, which is the same use as found in the LXX for Genesis 1:1. There is much dispute about which beginning is involved in the creation narrative. A re-creation is assumed by many or most theologians, who consider or attempt to explain the narrative in relation to known earth archaeology and geology. If it was the beginning, then the Greek has a means of saying exactly that.

The text in John 1:1 is seen to be another confirmation of Psalm 45:6-7 – as was Hebrews 1:8-9. John 1:1 must be read in context with Hebrews 1:8-9 and also Paul’s texts. John continues in chapter 1 to show that Christ was a subordinate to The God.

John 1:10-18 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not. ¹¹ He came to his own home, and his own people received him not.¹² But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; ¹³ who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. ¹⁴And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. ¹⁵ (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'") ¹⁶ And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. ¹⁷ For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. ¹⁸ No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. (RSV)

Thus the Word or logos was the Being that came as an only son from the Father. The Old Testament shows that there were myriad sons, some of whom were Morning Stars at or before the time this planet was formed (Job. 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7; Pss. 86:8-10; 95:3; 96:4; 135:5). Morning Star was the rank held by Satan (Isa. 14:12) and taken over by Christ (2Pet. 1:19; Rev. 2:28; 22:16). However, Christ was the only born son; that is, he is the only one of the sons of God who became born of flesh. This sense is held in John 1:18. The Receptus again alters this text to read the only born son or the monogenes uion. However, the ancient texts used monogenes theos or only born god (i.e. elohim) as Marshall’s Interlinear (using Nestle’s Text) shows. The word him is also added. The sense of the text is that the only born god spoke.

This is concealed by the Trinitarians in the same way that Philippians 2:6 was later translated, among others. For example: 1Timothy 3:16 in the KJV is compiled from the Receptus. The Receptus uses a blatant forgery in Codex A to attribute equality as God to Christ.

1Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (KJV)

The Companion Bible is an easily accessible reference for this text. The Revised Version prints He Who instead of God. The R.V. adds in the margin: “Theos rests on no sufficient evidence”. The Companion Bible goes on:

The probability is that the original reading was ho (which), with the Syriac and all the Latin version, to agree with musterion (neut.). The Greek uncial being O, some scribe added the letter s, making [Ho sigma] (He who), which he thought made better sense. Later another put a mark in this O making the word [theta sigma], the contraction for Theos, God. This mark in Codex A in the British Museum is said by some to be in different ink.

This problem came from the fact that there were no texts in the Bible supporting the Trinitarian position. To further develop the Trinitarian position, a number of other texts were inserted. We will examine these below. Binitarians are also confused by these texts, but their theology is much more simplistic and their comprehension of the issues seems much weaker.

Dependence of the Son on God the Father

This position now takes us back to John 5:19-47 where Christ made a series of points.

John 5:19-47 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. ²⁰ For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. ²¹ For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. ²² For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: ²³ That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. ²⁴Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. ²⁵ Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. ²⁶ For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; ²⁷And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. ²⁸ Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, ²⁹ And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. ³⁰ I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. ³¹ If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. ³² There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. ³³ Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. ³⁴ But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. ³⁵ He was a burning and a shining light: and ye were willing for a season to rejoice in his light. ³⁶ But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. ³⁷ And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape. ³⁸And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not ³⁹Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. ⁴⁰ And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. ⁴¹ I receive not honour from men. ⁴² But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.⁴³ I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. ⁴⁴ How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? ⁴⁵ Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. ⁴⁶For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (KJV)

Christ develops this delegated authority position. From this text we are shown that:

1. Christ could do nothing of himself (thus he is not co-equal in power).

2. The example of the Father was conferred on the Son, which the Son imitated.

3. The love of the Father was the reason for this disclosure of knowledge and power.

4. This love was to extend to the elect. Hence, the extension itself was the reason in order that they might marvel and so be converted (v. 20).

5. The resurrection is extended to the dead by the power of the Father. This discretion is given to Christ in judgment.

6. The Father takes no part in the judgment, having delegated the judgment to the Son.

7. This was done so that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. The honour of the Father is thus an attribute of His position. The honour of the Son is an attribute of his delegation and is thus not intrinsic.

8. This honour is conditional to the relationship with the Father who sent the son.

9. Whoever hears the words of Christ and believes on the Father who sent him has eternal life. They will not come into condemnation but into eternal life.

10. The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those that hear will live (i.e. eternally).

11. For as the Father has life in Himself so has He given the Son to have life in himself.

Thus the Son did not have life in himself except as it was given him by the Father. The power of the resurrection and of eternal life is delegated by the Father to the Son and, hence, to the elect. The elect are thus co-heirs with Christ to the power of the Father as enjoyed by the Son.

The State of Immortality

Immortality is the state of deathlessness (athanasia, SGD 110). It is used only three times in the New Testament (1Cor. 15:53,54; 1Tim. 6:16) in distinction to aptharsia (SGD 861) and apthartos (SGD 862), also translated immortal or immortality, which means incorruptible or genuineness and hence immortality or sincerity. (The name Athanasius, therefore, means the immortal one.)

God has this state of athanasia intrinsically. God the Father cannot die. That is a conditional to His omnipotence.

The text at 1Timothy 6:16 refers to the Father only as having this state. This text, as might be expected, is thus obscured in the KJV.

1Timothy 6:13-16 I give thee charge in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession; ¹⁴ That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: ¹⁵Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (KJV)

The sense of this text is that God is the blessed Potentate and King of Kings and Lord of Lords unto whom no one can approach, whom no one has seen nor can see. The Trinitarians are forced to attempt to claim that this text refers to Christ in the sequence of immortality, obviously because it denies the state of deathlessness to Christ intrinsically. We know from John 1:18 that no man has ever seen God and that Christ spoke. Christ was made visible and has been seen by men. God has never been seen by mortal eyes.

The RSV shows the intention more clearly that the One True God reveals or makes manifest in the proper time. He alone is immortal and that no one has ever seen Him nor ever can because He dwells in unapproachable light.

1Timothy 6:13-16 In the presence of God who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus who in his testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, ¹⁴ I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; ¹⁵ and this will be made manifest at the proper time by the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, ¹⁶ who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. (RSV)

The Jerusalem Bible translates this clearly and is unequivocal:

Now, before God the source of all life and before Jesus Christ, who spoke up as a witness for the truth in front of Pontius Pilate, I put to you the duty of doing all that you have been told, with no faults or failures, until the Appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who at the due time will be revealed by God, the blessed and only Ruler of all, the King of kings and the Lord of lords, who alone is immortal, whose home is in inaccessible light, whom no man has seen and no man is able to see: to him be honor and everlasting power. Amen

The New English Bible translates the text as:

I charge you to obey you orders irreproachably and without fault until our Lord Jesus Christ appears. That appearance God will bring to pass in [H]is own good time - God who in eternal felicity alone holds sway. He is King of kings and Lord of lords; [H]e alone possesses immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light. No man has ever seen or can see [H]im. To [H]im be honour and might for ever! Amen.

Phillip’s Modern English Bible and The Living Bible have the same context. God alone will make manifest, or order, the coming of Jesus Christ. God alone is immortal, or the only source of immortality (Phillip’s). No mortal eye can see Him (Phillip’s). The Living Bible renders the text 1Timothy 6:15-16 as:

For in due season Christ will be revealed from heaven by the blessed and only Almighty God, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone can never die, who lives in light so terrible that no human being can approach [H]im. No mere man has ever seen [Him], nor ever will. Unto [H]im be honor and everlasting power and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

The simple meaning of the words is seen as being that only God possesses intrinsic immortality or the state of deathlessness. God delegates this condition to Christ from John 5:26. This text cannot refer to Christ, as he was seen by the prophets and Apostles in his glorified or spiritual state, both before the incarnation and after the ascension, which was his glorified state (Acts 1:9). This is the reason why the Councils of the Trinitarian Church have ruled against those who hold that Christ was seen from the Old Testament. This ruling also attempts to prevent identification of Christ as the Angel of Yahovah. Christ was glorified and granted eternal life by God both before and after the incarnation. This logic is attacked by Trinitarians from the point of view of the text at John 17:5.

John 17:5 and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made. (RSV)

The KJV says: "glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was". This text which follows John 17:2,3,4 and is qualified by them – also implying a willing self-revelation of God to Christ – is somehow taken to mean that Christ was immortal, co-eternal and co-equal in spite of the multiplicity of other texts which show that he did not seek to grasp equality and that Christ did not possess intrinsic immortality.

John 17:2-5 since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. ⁴ I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do; ⁵ and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made. (RSV)

We know that mortals (thnetos or dying, occurring five times: Rom. 6:12; 8:11; 1Cor. 15:53,54; 2Cor. 4:11) can acquire athanasia or immortality from 1Corinthians 15:53-54. Thus Christ at present is the only Being to acquire immortality through the resurrection.

God possesses immortality intrinsically. Others acquire it by delegation. Christ and the elect thus become immortal but they, by the same process, are not eternal in a retrospective sense. Christ cannot give eternal life to other than those determined and given to him by the Father. This text merely reinforces the fact that Christ had a pre-incarnation state that was with God and was from God’s own self. Christ was in the form of God. This state was conferred by the Holy Spirit, which is God as the power of God and the means by which Christ is glorified as God (see the papers The Holy Spirit (No. 117) and also Consubstantial with the Father (No. 81)).

The glorification of Christ is that of the elect. The form (morphe) of God, as the image of the invisible God, is delegated to the elect as it was to Christ. The elect are thus foreknown from God’s omniscience, predestined, chosen, called, justified and hence glorified (Rom 8:29-30).

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. ³⁰ And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. (RSV)

The glorification that was given to Christ, and which he had as the Angel of Yahovah and elohim of Israel with God before the incarnation, is given to the elect as elohim (Zech. 12:8).

The elect thus put on immortality also.

1Corinthians 15:51-54 Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, ⁵² in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. ⁵³ For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. ⁵⁴ When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." (RSV)

Nothing in any of these texts can be construed as implying that Christ was either co-eternal with God or co-equal. Nor can it be inferred that Christ was independent of the power of God for existence. He thus cannot be a true God in the sense that the Father is a True God.

There is only One True God that lives for ever and ever and all beings or things were created by His will, and they exist and were created for His pleasure (Rev. 4:11).

Christ’s titles

God gives to Christ a number of positions. Yahovah was one title that Christ was given, however, he is given others (Isa. 9:6, see esp. everlasting father).

Yahovah

Yahovah stems from the title I am that I will become (from ‘eyeh ‘asher ‘eyeh) as given at Sinai (see Companion Bible, fn. to Ex. 3:14; see SHD 1961 for hayah or ‘eyeh). Christ thus declared himself as Yahovah (SHD 3068), the national god of Israel, as opposed to Yahovih (SHD 3069) or Yahovah of Host. Christ’s claim enraged the Jews (Jn. 8:58).

God was becoming something and Christ was part of that activity. God was extending Himself as and through the elohim.

Everlasting Father

Trinitarians also make claim from the conferring of the title everlasting father that Christ was also the Father, which is absurd given the distinctions within the Monarchia and the Circumincession of Trinitarian theology, where the Trinity is distinct but not separate. The only way that this title can be given is by delegation.

There are in fact many fatherhoods (or patria) in both Heaven and Earth. This is translated as every family in most Bibles to obscure this meaning.

Ephesians 3:14-15 For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, ¹⁵ from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, (RSV)

The KJV renders it every fatherhood as the whole family; again obscuring an interpretative text. The everlasting fatherhood is delegated with the power of eternal life. Each of the families in Heaven is under a leader, and the function of the divisions of the priesthood and the nation into twenty-four divisions (see the paper God’s Calendar (No. 156)) was to mirror the celestial Temple and God’s government (Heb. 8:5).

King of kings and Lord of lords

Another of those delegated titles is the title King of kings and Lord of lords, which we see applies to the Father (1Tim. 6:16) but is conferred on the Son for the Return, the Subjugation of the Planet, and the Millennial Reign (Rev. 19:16).

Revelation 19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords. (RSV)

This function of delegation in Hebrew is not properly understood by modern Christianity. In Hebrew cosmology, the messenger was treated with the deference of the entity that he represented.

Delegation of Immortality from Alpha and Omega

The function of immortality was vested in God the Father, as we have seen (1Tim. 6:16). This process was extended to Christ and then to the elect. Christ in the first instance became the Alpha and the Omega by delegation. This is revealed by God to Christ in Revelation 1:8-20.

Revelation 1:8-20 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty. ⁹ I John, your brother, who share with you in Jesus the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. ¹⁰ I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet ¹¹ saying, "Write what you see in a book and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Per'gamum and to Thyati'ra and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to La-odice'a." ¹² Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, ¹³ and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast; ¹⁴ his head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, ¹⁵ his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters; ¹⁶ in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength. ¹⁷ When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, "Fear not, I am the first and the last, ¹⁸ and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades. ¹⁹ Now write what you see, what is and what is to take place hereafter. ²⁰ As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. (RSV)

The text of Revelation 1 is constructed in five paragraphs or sections: verses 1-3, 4-6, 7-8, 9-11, 12-20. God is before the throne and this Being is distinct from Christ, the third element in this chapter. The distinction is made between "the one who is and was and is to come" and Jesus Christ. The former or first Being has a throne in front of the seven spirits. This Being, the Lord God who is the Father, is the Being whose coming is described in Revelation 21. The structure is thus introduced in chapter 1 and concluded in chapter 21, being explained in the intervening chapters. The Alpha and the Omega is shown as being God Almighty and not Jesus Christ, from verse 8. The text at verse 17 shows the term the first and the last (protos and eschatos; the first-born of a series). This is derived from the meaning of the delegation by God of the process of the first and last to Christ. He was not Alpha and Omega but he was the first-born from the dead. He was alive and dead and alive again forevermore. The text shows the concept in the RSV.

In the KJV, we can see that this concept was resisted by the compilers of the Receptus, who inserted the words Alpha and Omega in the text at verse 11 where no such concept or words existed in the ancient texts. The following became the text in the KJV.

Revelation 1:11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (KJV)

This wording does not appear in the ancient texts (e.g. not in NU or M texts, not in Vatican manuscript #1209 Emphatic Diaglott, hence also not in other Bibles). The Companion Bible notes that the texts omit the words I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, and as referring to Christ and also the words which are in Asia (see fn. to v. 11). Verse 8 is also translated as simply the Lord and not the Lord God (Greek: the Lord The God) as is evident from the RSV and also the New English Bible, Phillip’s and the Jerusalem Bible. The KJV version of Revelation 1 is a distortion involving false insertions in the Receptus. The purpose is to assert Christ as the Alpha and the Omega as seemingly ignoring God rather than by delegation from God.

All of these alterations or forgeries to key texts are by Trinitarians in order to distort the theology to assert their false position. The Alpha was the primary source. He also retains the first and last structure. Christ came from this source. He was not the Alpha. However, he was the first and he will be the last (eschatos). God is, however, the Omega. He is thus the end result of the activity of the creation. Christ is dedicated to the establishment of the Kingdom of God where God will become all in all. As Omega, God becomes the product of His own (God’s) creation. We become individual aspects of the Holy Spirit as it is a monotheist web of living entities coming from and interacting with God the Father and each other.

Christ was the first-begotten of the creation. He is before all things (at their head, see Zech. 12:8). In him all things subsist or are held together (Col. 1:16-17).

Christ was seen biblically as a subordinate elohim or theos (Ps. 45:6-7; Heb. 1:8-9; Gen. 48:14-16; Zech. 12:6). This was the Great Angel who was Israel’s second God (see Barker’s The Great Angel: Israel’s Second God for a quasi-Trinitarian perspective).

Christ derives his life, power and authority by command of God the Father (Jn. 10:17-18). Christ subordinates his will to God who is the Father (Mat. 21:31; 26:39; Mk. 14:36; Jn. 3:16; 4:34). God gives the elect to Christ, being greater than Christ (Jn. 14:28) and greater than all (Jn. 10:29). God sent His only born (monogene) Son into the world that we might live through him (1Jn. 4:9). God honours Christ, being greater than Christ (Jn. 8:54).

The elect are made to participate in the divine nature (2Pet. 1:4). God put all things under the feet of Christ and made him head of all things to the Church. God promised His inheritance to the saints and He gave it to them through His mighty power:

Ephesians 1:20-23 which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, ²¹far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; ²²and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, ²³which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all. (RSV)

The entire purpose of Christ’s existence as a being, a power and incarnation as a man was to fulfil God’s will as it applied to the saints and God’s plan of creation and salvation.

Christ’s condition of existence where the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily (Col. 2:9) involves the theotetos, translated here as Godhead. This is the deity or the state of being God. Deity (theot) differs from divinity (theiot) as essence differs from quality or attribute (Thayer’s p. 288). Thus, Christ possessed the essence of the God’s deity and not His attributes other than by delegation. All things are given to Christ by God.

1Corinthians 15:27-28 "For God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection under him," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. ²⁸ When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one. (RSV)

Obscuring texts is not the province of any one Bible. Here the RSV has rendered this text to read everything to everyone rather than all in all as in the KJV. The text in Colossians 3:11 is the same sense (panta kai en pasin). Here we see that God is to be all in all. Thus we are vehicles of the Spirit of God. We are the living stones of the Temple that houses the Being and power of God. We thus become immortal as Christ was given immortality and as God has immortality. We can never be the Alpha but we will finally become the Omega as elohim as part of God.

God’s Omnipotence and Immortality

The logic of God’s omnipotence has an intrinsic limitation. He could not die, being spirit and immortal. The plan of creation was to reproduce Himself through the power of His Spirit by which means He conferred His attributes. This necessarily involved immortality. The retention of the state of immortality was dependent upon the allocation of the Spirit within a spiritual structure by the will of God.

The fallen Host were and are spirit, but their retention of the state of immortality is finite. The loyal Host are glorified with God in His presence and they have held that estate from before the creation of the world in the same way that Christ held that state before his incarnation. Because of the rebellion of some of the Host and the sin of man, the designated leader of the loyal Host had to assume an earthly existence in order to show the love of God by laying down himself for his brethren. God is showing this love by extending the process of immortality and power to His children. This elevates others to a greater position and does not rule by force and power without love. Satan would not subjugate himself. God chose Christ and made him the only born Son and elohim. He then became the first-born from the dead. He achieved his position as a son of God in power from his resurrection from the dead (Rom. 1:4). He thus was not in this position before the resurrection. He was thus anointed with the oil of gladness above his partners (Heb. 1:8-9). Psalm 45:6-7 is thus a prophecy. This was all done by the command of God and through no other power.

Christ held that he had a command from the Father to lay down his life and to take it up again. All these things he did in accordance with the will of the Father, who was his God and Father and our God and Father. This point is made in John 20:17.

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (KJV)

The Bible is clear that Eloah is the God Most High. He is the Father of us all (Mal. 2:10).

Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? (KJV)

Christ gave up his position as a son of God to become human and die for us. This was something God could not do.

We will now proceed to examine the theology of the disciples of the Apostles and their understanding against the above constructions from the plain words of the Bible texts. A most important point to make is that Trinitarian or Binitarian theology is not evident in any of the early writings. All of the disciples and the early apologists held that Christ was a creation of the Father. For this reason the early disciples are rarely read and are even more rarely quoted.

One of the most important early theologians was Irenæus. He was the disciple of Polycarp and perhaps of John himself. He was one of the most important of the Smyrna church and he and another disciple went to Lyon via Rome. He became bishop of Lyon. He is the closest we can get to the doctrine of the Apostles in explanation or clarification of what John and the others meant in the New Testament. We will see that Irenæus held that we would become elohim or theoi as prophesied in Zechariah 12:8. These positions were examined in more detail in the work Early Theology of the Godhead (No. 127).

Irenæus says of God:

For He commanded, and they were created; He spake and they were made. Whom therefore did He command? The Word, no doubt, by whom, He says, the heavens were established and all their power by the breath of His mouth [Ps. 33:6]. (Adv. Haer., III, viii, 3)

Irenæus held that:

… it is clearly proved that neither the prophets nor the apostles did ever name another God, or call [him] Lord, except the true and only God.... But the things established are distinct from Him who has established them, and what have been made from Him who made them. For He is Himself uncreated, both without beginning and end, and lacking nothing. He is Himself sufficient for Himself; and still further, He grants to all others this very thing, existence; but the things which have been made by Him (ibid.).

Irenæus extended the capacity to become God (theos or elohim) to the Logos here as distinct from the other things established (ibid.). He had already established the position of God and the Son and those of the adoption as theoi or elohim and all sons of God from Book III, Chapter vi.

Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage has it: The Lord says unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool [Ps. 110:1]. Here the [Scripture] represents the Father addressing the Son; He who gave Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies...

Irenæus went on to state that the Holy Spirit termed both Father and Son here as Lord. He held that it was Christ who spoke with Abraham prior to the destruction of the Sodomites and had received power [from God] to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following]

… does declare the same truth: “‘Thy throne, O God’ is for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God hath anointed Thee” [Ps. 45:6] For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name of God [theos or elohim] - both Him who is anointed as Son and Him who does anoint, that is the Father. And again: “God stood in the congregation of the gods, he judges among the gods” [Ps. 82:1]. He [here] refers to the Father and the Son and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church for she is the synagogue of God, which God - that is the Son Himself - has gathered by Himself of whom He again speaks: “The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth.” [Ps. 50:1]. Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, “God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence;” [Ps. 50:3] that is, the Son who came manifested to men, who said, “I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not” [Isa. 65:1]. But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, “I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High” [Ps. 82:6]. To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the “adoption, by which we cry Abba Father” [Rom. 8:15] (Against Heresies, Bk. III, Ch. vi, ANF, Vol. I, pp. 418-419).

There is no doubt that Irenæus had a subordinationist view of the Godhead and extended the term God (as theoi or elohim) to include the Son and those also of the adoption. He seems to indicate here that Christ gathered the elect, whereas we know from Scripture that it is God who gives the elect to Christ in order that they be gathered (Jn. 17:11-12; Heb. 2:13; 9:15). The exclusive application of the term to the physical elect may be incorrect given Irenæus’ application here. The loyal Host are also included in the council from the understanding in Revelation 4 and 5. Thus the loyal Host are also the Ecclesia of God.

There is no doubt that the term elohim or theoi was held to extend to the Church and that this was the understanding of the first century Church both from John to Polycarp, who taught Irenæus, and on into the second and subsequent centuries.

Another writer of approximately the same time as Irenæus was Justin Martyr. He showed the first tendencies to move to Sunday worship, as we will see below.

Justin

Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is therein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed. (Apol., I, xiii)

And the first power after God the Father and Lord of all is the Word (logos), who is also the Son. (Apol., I, xxxii).

It is wrong, therefore, to understand the Spirit and the power of God, as anything else than the Word (logos), who is also the firstborn of God. (Apol., I, xxxiii).

Thus, Justin thinks of the Logos as an emanation of God, which is capable of individuation, to embrace the concept of the Spirit in general and Christ in particular. He says, however:

But both Him [God] and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, knowing them in reason and in truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught.

Thus, the angels were also held to be conformed to the image of God (in the same way as Christ was made like Him). From Chapters 13, 16 and 61, Justin did not advocate the worship of Angels (see also fn. 3 to ANF, Vol. 1, p. 164; see the paper Early Theology of the Godhead (No. 127) for comment). The worship of the Christian Church is confined to God and does not extend even to Christ, other than in homage as a controller and master. But, importantly, Justin extends the body to include the loyal Host. This is therefore a closer approximation to the biblical doctrine of the Spirit being capable of individuation to embrace the elect who are to become theoi, as Christ is one of the theoi subordinate to his theos, who is God the Father. Biblically, he is, however, the second highest theos, as the High Priest.

Justin was seemingly among the first to introduce Sunday worship (see Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday, p. 223ff.) yet he was still a subordinationist. He held peculiar antinomian views regarding the Sabbath and its application to the Jews as a peculiar punishment. His views were not supported by Christians at the time, and Bacchiocchi holds that the Christian Church has never accepted such a false thesis (p. 225). To hold that God established the circumcision and the Sabbath solely on account of the wickedness of the Jews as a distinguishing mark, to

PO Box 369, WODEN ACT 2606, AUSTRALIA

There is only One True God

Sons of God

The State of Immortality

Christ’s titles

Yahovah

God’s Omnipotence and Immortality